Yeah, it seems to me - from reading many of these discussions - that of the people who say they like "4d6 drop lowest", a pretty big chunk actually use "4d6 drop lowest, but then reroll or add numbers or change things around if [various conditions]".
I actually use 4d6 drop lowest. All that other re-roll or roll more or ..whatever is crap.
Every time you add a die or re-roll, you're skewing the result higher. So much to the point of just hand out 18s and don't bother rolling in the first place.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
If choosing between SPA/Point Buy or rolling 4D6, drop the lowest is part of your optimization process then rolling for stats would be to optimize, since that allows for better stats across the board and teh risk of getting worse stats than SPA/Point Buy are very low.
This is just incorrect.
No, it is objectively not. Since you drop the lowest. This increases your chances of getting a higher average. And more importantly, you run a higher than zero chance of getting an 18, 19 or 20 when rolling whereas that chance is zero with point buy and standard point array.
Also, from your own link:
It also shows us that the average roll is rougly 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. This is pretty close to the D&D 3 elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) and the slightly boosted D&D 4 standard array (16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10).
Yeah exactly....its pretty much the same as standard array. The part you forgot to include though:
No. It is very much not the standard array. You are objectively completely wrong. With the average above a half-elf could get a Charisma of 18 and then nothing worse than a 10. This will forever be impossible with both SPA and PB. So 4d6 has a better payoff.
Highest at least
One
Two
Three
18
9.34%
0.38%
0.01%
17
30.07%
4.03%
0.34%
16
56.76%
17.85%
3.26%
15
79.40%
42.16%
14.13%
14
92.80%
69.01%
36.29%
Is that you have a 79% chance to roll a 15. And only a 42% chance to have a second 15
You're doing math wrong. It's not a "79% chance to roll a 15" it's "79% chance to roll a 15 or higher". Which means that it uncludes 15, 16, 17 and 18. The last three are of course impossible to get using point buy.
Point Buy you have a 100% chance to have two 15s.
Yes, but that will mess up your other scores. 4d6, drop the lowest, does not.
Overall Rolling is potentially better...but its just as likely it will be bad.
Except that it's not. Because you drop the lowest. You're basically doing the Monty Hall problem but with dice.
Agree one post actually said they do not like point buy because the stats suck and adventurers are supposed to be special. Point buy is a lot better than a commoner straight 10s but they have come to expect pcs to have higher stats than point buy, either because they rolled average or better or they were able to refill when they rolled badly.
If you want to max out your primary stat with point buy most classes are level 8 before they take a feat and a ot of campaigns end before then so I can se the desire for higher stat characters. Other than rolling this can be achieved by a modified point buy such as 31 point with a 16 costing 12 point.
I let my players choose individually. You want point-buy? Sure. You want to roll, have at it. Standard array is good, too.
I'm actually considering even dropping 4d6 drop lowest and just going with 3d6 for my next campaign. 4d6dL was created back when your ability scores were carved in stone, and we had negative racial modifiers. So you needed a bit of a boost at the get-go. Nowadays, mods are all positive and you can increase your scores a number of ways over the course of your adventuring career. Not sure we need that boost any more.
It's interesting that most people who like to roll stats also like to use die rolling conventions that produce significantly more powerful characters than RAW. Perhaps their actual objection to points or standard array is that they think the stats are too low?
You made this comment after I mentioned the D&D with high school students method. Bill Allan uses it yes, specifically because it leads to higher stats. He does this (1) because he's playing with teenagers who have never played D&D or RPGs before (for the most part), and (b) he has a very low magic world, so he tells them he likes to start them out with slightly better stats to compensate. Also, if you watch the various series, I don't think the PCs ever got past 3rd level. It's at low level, really, that those stats super-matter. By 5th level, even, characters have 30-40+ hp, they have probably a few minor magic items, potions of healing, a +1 sword, maybe a wand of something small like magic missiles, they've upped some stats or taken a feat. At 1st level with newbies you have none of that. He's explaining to them what a hit point is... so he gives them a bit of a leg up.
As I say, I actually used a stat array, but I used the Dungeon Dudes' "enhanced starting array" which is 17-15-13-12-10-8, rather than the default. They suggest using this array for two reasons that I really liked: First, it eliminates the entire issue of "needing" to take a racial option and class option that synergize. You get a free 17 from the array, so if you want to play that half-orc wizard, you still can start with a 17 Int, and do just as well as someone using the standard array starting with a gnome or something that gets +2 racial bonus to int. Actually you'll do better, because in addition to the 17 int, you get a 17 to something else (that you got the +2 racial bonus in). Second, for people who do take the synergistic combo, the starting value of their prime stat is a 19, which enables them to take feats right away and not have to spend the both the level 4 and level 8 options on upping their stats -- and the choosing of feats helps makes characters unique and interesting.
And I have to say this worked. 3 of my players chose what would be considered "non standard" races for their chosen class... and I think all 4 of them chose a feat at level 4 if I remember right.
Again, I do not use the 4D6 method. When I have defended it, I have done so simply because I can see why some people do, and I understand why they like it. And under some circumstances, I might use it myself, mostly for the reasons Colville does. Like him (he has them re-roll if their stats don't sum to a certain minimum, or if they don't have at least two 15s, which as you say is better than the standard array), I would not be doing this to hurt the players or make the stats worse. Indeed, I would probably do some statistics like people have done here, and make sure that the odds favor a better array than the standard.
Rather, I would do 4d6-drop-one like Colville, at the table, rolling stats in order, and saying "we will discover our party together" like he does. I have personally witnessed players bringing their baggage from other games into my campaign, and I think it has been harmful (and if I had realized the extent to which it was going to happen, I would have disallowed the character right from the off). The player I'm thinking of, had played this character in a long, fun campaign previously, and loved playing him, so re-created him in my game. But then he was constantly frustrated that he could not re-live the same experiences he had with another game group at another table with his character. And no, I don't think he expected this initially, or even consciously... but deep down in his subconscious, he was expecting it to be just like it always was. Except it can't be -- there's a new party, every player at the table is different, I am the DM not someone else, and I did not see his other campaign so I cannot know, other than by 3rd hand stories, what he experienced. And even if I did know, and even if I had been his DM that other time, and even if we had all played with him before, and even if we had in concept agreed to re-run the exact same campaign as we had in the past, it could not have happened. Because you cannot catch lightning in a bottle twice.
Now, I knew he had some nostalgia for the character, and he had his heart set on it, so I allowed it. I even allowed a background that only marginally fit into the game I was running. And I think he was happy at first but as time went on, he became more and more unhappy "with his character" in this sort of nebulous, ill-defined way. And although he could never articulate it, maybe never realized what was going on consciously, he was perpetually dissatisfied, because he couldn't relive that old experience the way he had, deep down in places he doesn't talk about at parties, really wanted. So he had fun, yes... but there was always "something missing" that he couldn't put his finger on. And it was something as a DM I just could not give him, because I could not be the other DM, and the other players couldn't be the other party.
When I think about this, and realize that if I had just effing forced him to roll 4d6-drop-one in order, he'd almost certainly not have been able to play the class he needed to play this character, and would have been forced to play someone else. Someone new. Someone with no baggage -- no expectations of how the campaign would go. And although he'd have grumbled initially about playing a dragonborn barbarian or a halfling rogue instead of his chosen class, I think he'd have been happier in the long run with playing the new character. Because he could have just focused on this character in this campaign instead of trying to make this character be like it was last time.
For me the weird thing about rolling is that most tables that do it allow you to re-roll/add points/etc... to generally make it at least as good as Standard Array or Point Buy but likely better.
Why not just do a higher point buy or a heroic array with higher stats then and stop pretending its about "random". I have this inherent distrust that people actually think its cool to have all 12's due to rolling and will likely just ask for point buy when they get it.
I am likely just a conspiracy theorist but I think that 90% of the tables that roll for stats really just do it in the hopes of getting super high stats and not for any kind of "randomness".
So I may be wrong but what irks me is the fact that people lie about their reasoning behind it a lot I think. If they were honest and said "I do it so I can potentially get great stats because I find that fun" I would be more ok with it as thats honesty at least.
I also hate that people just assume they will roll better stats with it...there is still a decent chance you just roll terrible stats or 12's across the board. Odds are in your favor but its still very possible to just be a slightly above average commoner, which to me at least, is a bad way to start a character.
If I had a table insist on rolling I would likely be hard on the fact that there is no re-rolling. You want to do it you have to accept the potential consequences. If you dont want to do that then I will suggest a higher point buy or heroic array and see what people go for.
For me the weird thing about rolling is that most tables that do it allow you to re-roll/add points/etc... to generally make it at least as good as Standard Array or Point Buy but likely better.
Why not just do a higher point buy or a heroic array with higher stats then and stop pretending its about "random". I have this inherent distrust that people actually think its cool to have all 12's due to rolling and will likely just ask for point buy when they get it.
I am likely just a conspiracy theorist but I think that 90% of the tables that roll for stats really just do it in the hopes of getting super high stats and not for any kind of "randomness".
So I may be wrong but what irks me is the fact that people lie about their reasoning behind it a lot I think. If they were honest and said "I do it so I can potentially get great stats because I find that fun" I would be more ok with it as thats honesty at least.
I also hate that people just assume they will roll better stats with it...there is still a decent chance you just roll terrible stats or 12's across the board. Odds are in your favor but its still very possible to just be a slightly above average commoner, which to me at least, is a bad way to start a character.
If I had a table insist on rolling I would likely be hard on the fact that there is no re-rolling. You want to do it you have to accept the potential consequences. If you dont want to do that then I will suggest a higher point buy or heroic array and see what people go for.
Statistically you will roll better than PB or SPA. I agree with you on the other points, though. Especially the point about no-one actually wanting to play a very average character. Sure, I've had fun doing it in a one-shot or short adventure but I would never want to go levels 1-20 with 12s across the board.
You can always just use all 3 systems. Have your players roll the 4d6 and drop the lowest, if they don't like the scores they can then use either point buy or standard array as a fallback,
I like this. Consider it stolen.
OboeLauren said she does this, but the players also get the option for another attempt to roll. Whatever they choose to do after a bad roll, they keep even if it's a worse roll.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Especially the point about no-one actually wanting to play a very average character.
Nobody does rolls to try and play average characters.
They either do them like Colville, to also assign the values to random stats, thus providing a "discovery of your character as you go" moment... or else they do it to ensure that not everyone has the exact same combo of 15--14-13-12-10-8, which gets kind of monotonous. And some people don't like point buy because it lets you be too perfectly efficient with stat allocations, and again, some people prefer if there is some "slop" to the points, because it feels (not saying it is, saying it feels) more natural.
Again, I am not advocating for what I do -- I used a "heroic" or improved stat array this time. The only reason I would go with rolls is if I also went with "discover your character" and made people put their stats where they land, not where they want. Incidentally, two of my players, when I described this method later after we had done characters, said they thought it would be fun to do this next time. And one who has already made up 5 future characters and planned them out to level 20 including "wish list" magic items, probably would hate it, though I haven't asked him specifically. (On the other hand if he makes up enough characters, he will probably have one for every possible set of rolls he could come up with, LOL.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Especially the point about no-one actually wanting to play a very average character.
Nobody does rolls to try and play average characters.
They either do them like Colville, to also assign the values to random stats, thus providing a "discovery of your character as you go" moment... or else they do it to ensure that not everyone has the exact same combo of 15--14-13-12-10-8, which gets kind of monotonous. And some people don't like point buy because it lets you be too perfectly efficient with stat allocations, and again, some people prefer if there is some "slop" to the points, because it feels (not saying it is, saying it feels) more natural.
Again, I am not advocating for what I do -- I used a "heroic" or improved stat array this time. The only reason I would go with rolls is if I also went with "discover your character" and made people put their stats where they land, not where they want. Incidentally, two of my players, when I described this method later after we had done characters, said they thought it would be fun to do this next time. And one who has already made up 5 future characters and planned them out to level 20 including "wish list" magic items, probably would hate it, though I haven't asked him specifically. (On the other hand if he makes up enough characters, he will probably have one for every possible set of rolls he could come up with, LOL.)
Covilles method is interesting but I think is the worst possible way to start a new player to DnD. I would be ok with as an experienced player but new players would have no idea what to do with these random stats, especially if they are terrible.
His players all end up with about equal stats with most having a 20 and an 18 in something if you read The Chain character sheets. The exception is Copper and he is a beastmaster with a friggin displacer beast and if you look at the stats they provide in the show doesn't take many hits:
Also Coville hands out abilities and items that are not part of the normal run of the game which complicates things more.
In fact most of them are exceptional just proves my point that nobody actually wants to play a character with 12s across the board. It would be terribly boring for a podcast and for the player.
You look at CR you see the same thing except the players have made choices to take feats over ASI but they still all have a 19 or 20 in at least one stat.
"Rolling Culture" as I call it seems to make people think they will get these phenomenal stats but when they don't its disappointing and they move on to the normal way of doing things or they strike lucky and they tend to shift the balance in their favor.
If your way of producing stats requires you as a DM to provide magic items or abilities to even the scores within the ranks you are needlessly complicating the matter IMO.
I wonder what DDB uses when doing a completely random character during creation.
Using DDB's character sheet dice roller with 4d6 and dropping lowest, I got the following array (in order): 15, 10, 16, 9, 13, 16. Better than decent IMHO.
But using the random character generator, I got (left to right): 8, 10, 8, 11, 16, 7 (which is awful for a Barbarian with the standard Half-Elf score adjustments - class and origin also randomly picked by DDB).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
I wonder what DDB uses when doing a completely random character during creation.
Using DDB's character sheet dice roller with 4d6 and dropping lowest, I got the following array (in order): 15, 10, 16, 9, 13, 16. Better than decent IMHO.
But using the random character generator, I got (left to right): 8, 10, 8, 11, 16, 7 (which is awful for a Barbarian with the standard Half-Elf score adjustments - class and origin also randomly picked by DDB).
Yeah completely random characters are utter trash IMO.
The first is reasonable as you have a few options you could go although its a weird combo of stats (STR, CON, and CHA means paladin most likely).
But the second? what would you even do with those stats? As a new player looking at those stats I wouldn't even know what to do. I have good wisdom so I guess I am a cleric? Except my AC is like 16 with medium armor and a shield and I start out with abysmal HP and drop my concentration spells at the drop of a hat.
I guess I am going Moon druid as its the only way I can play most of the game without those stats.
Or I swan dive into the nearest lava pit and try again.
The "find the character" method has a lot of flaws and this is one. If you roll decent stats it can work, but if you roll terrible it doesn' t help tell a story it just makes a trash character.
Especially the point about no-one actually wanting to play a very average character.
Nobody does rolls to try and play average characters.
I know. That wasn't what I said though. It was a comment on the whole argument that lots of people like (or at least don't mind) playing a character with 12s across the board. Except for very short campaigns or one-shots, I haven't really found anyone who enjoys that sort of thing.
Coleville's method can be interesting if you don't have any idea for a character what so ever and want the dice to help you along. However, you are still stuck with the same problem as always, some characters might suck compared to others and one crappy stat in the wrong place might screw up your idea. Or you might just get stats that are suitable for something you don't want to play.
Just for fun I used a dice roller and got the following. Strength 16 Dexterity 13 Constitution 13 Intelligence 10 Wisdom 16 Charisma 15. Not bad stats by a longshot (in fact, they are damn good) and they would be fantastic for, say a Samurai Fighter, or Half-elf Paladin, Warlock or Bard. Too bad I've already played both a Bard and a Paladin recently and I'm not really in the mood for a Warlock but what are you going to do?
Especially the point about no-one actually wanting to play a very average character.
Nobody does rolls to try and play average characters.
I know. That wasn't what I said though. It was a comment on the whole argument that lots of people like (or at least don't mind) playing a character with 12s across the board. Except for very short campaigns or one-shots, I haven't really found anyone who enjoys that sort of thing.
Coleville's method can be interesting if you don't have any idea for a character what so ever and want the dice to help you along. However, you are still stuck with the same problem as always, some characters might suck compared to others and one crappy stat in the wrong place might screw up your idea. Or you might just get stats that are suitable for something you don't want to play.
Just for fun I used a dice roller and got the following. Strength 16 Dexterity 13 Constitution 13 Intelligence 10 Wisdom 16 Charisma 15. Not bad stats by a longshot (in fact, they are **** good) and they would be fantastic for, say a Samurai Fighter, or Half-elf Paladin, Warlock or Bard. Too bad I've already played both a Bard and a Paladin recently and I'm not really in the mood for a Warlock but what are you going to do?
But the internet says I do! The internet can't possibly be wrong... can it?
I mean...If I wanted to play an average or below average character I would play Accountants and Apartments not Dungeons and Dragons.
Ok...? I mean, just because the rest of your party has straight 18s, does not mean you can't have fun with 16, 14, 10, 8, 8, 8.
Even then you are about 90% of the way to a decent character.
We are talking about
12 12 12 12 12 12
or
8 8 10 11 14 7
Those are not in the same ballpark as 16, 14, 10, 8, 8, 8. as you at least have a 16 in your main stat and a 14 in CON. You could make a pretty effective STR fighter with that.
The other two are straight hot garbage and produce a character that cant even do what their character is expected to do well. You would for sure notice this if your party is rocking multiple 18s.
But the internet says I do! The internet can't possibly be wrong... can it?
I mean...If I wanted to play an average or below average character I would play Accountants and Apartments not Dungeons and Dragons.
Ok...? I mean, just because the rest of your party has straight 18s, does not mean you can't have fun with 16, 14, 10, 8, 8, 8.
Even then you are about 90% of the way to a decent character.
We are talking about
12 12 12 12 12 12
or
8 8 10 11 14 7
Those are not in the same ballpark as 16, 14, 10, 8, 8, 8. as you at least have a 16 in your main stat and a 14 in CON. You could make a pretty effective STR fighter with that.
The other two are straight hot garbage and produce a character that cant even do what their character is expected to do well. You would for sure notice this if your party is rocking multiple 18s.
12 12 12 12 12 12 is just boring. I have rolled a character with my best stat a 12, and having 3 or 4 negatives.
I actually use 4d6 drop lowest. All that other re-roll or roll more or ..whatever is crap.
Every time you add a die or re-roll, you're skewing the result higher. So much to the point of just hand out 18s and don't bother rolling in the first place.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I like 4d6
Cult of Sedge
Rangers are the best, and have always been the best
I love Homebrew
I hate paladins
Warrior Bovine
You're doing math wrong. It's not a "79% chance to roll a 15" it's "79% chance to roll a 15 or higher". Which means that it uncludes 15, 16, 17 and 18. The last three are of course impossible to get using point buy.
Yes, but that will mess up your other scores. 4d6, drop the lowest, does not.
Except that it's not. Because you drop the lowest. You're basically doing the Monty Hall problem but with dice.
Agree one post actually said they do not like point buy because the stats suck and adventurers are supposed to be special. Point buy is a lot better than a commoner straight 10s but they have come to expect pcs to have higher stats than point buy, either because they rolled average or better or they were able to refill when they rolled badly.
If you want to max out your primary stat with point buy most classes are level 8 before they take a feat and a ot of campaigns end before then so I can se the desire for higher stat characters. Other than rolling this can be achieved by a modified point buy such as 31 point with a 16 costing 12 point.
I let my players choose individually. You want point-buy? Sure. You want to roll, have at it. Standard array is good, too.
I'm actually considering even dropping 4d6 drop lowest and just going with 3d6 for my next campaign. 4d6dL was created back when your ability scores were carved in stone, and we had negative racial modifiers. So you needed a bit of a boost at the get-go. Nowadays, mods are all positive and you can increase your scores a number of ways over the course of your adventuring career. Not sure we need that boost any more.
You made this comment after I mentioned the D&D with high school students method. Bill Allan uses it yes, specifically because it leads to higher stats. He does this (1) because he's playing with teenagers who have never played D&D or RPGs before (for the most part), and (b) he has a very low magic world, so he tells them he likes to start them out with slightly better stats to compensate. Also, if you watch the various series, I don't think the PCs ever got past 3rd level. It's at low level, really, that those stats super-matter. By 5th level, even, characters have 30-40+ hp, they have probably a few minor magic items, potions of healing, a +1 sword, maybe a wand of something small like magic missiles, they've upped some stats or taken a feat. At 1st level with newbies you have none of that. He's explaining to them what a hit point is... so he gives them a bit of a leg up.
As I say, I actually used a stat array, but I used the Dungeon Dudes' "enhanced starting array" which is 17-15-13-12-10-8, rather than the default. They suggest using this array for two reasons that I really liked: First, it eliminates the entire issue of "needing" to take a racial option and class option that synergize. You get a free 17 from the array, so if you want to play that half-orc wizard, you still can start with a 17 Int, and do just as well as someone using the standard array starting with a gnome or something that gets +2 racial bonus to int. Actually you'll do better, because in addition to the 17 int, you get a 17 to something else (that you got the +2 racial bonus in). Second, for people who do take the synergistic combo, the starting value of their prime stat is a 19, which enables them to take feats right away and not have to spend the both the level 4 and level 8 options on upping their stats -- and the choosing of feats helps makes characters unique and interesting.
And I have to say this worked. 3 of my players chose what would be considered "non standard" races for their chosen class... and I think all 4 of them chose a feat at level 4 if I remember right.
Again, I do not use the 4D6 method. When I have defended it, I have done so simply because I can see why some people do, and I understand why they like it. And under some circumstances, I might use it myself, mostly for the reasons Colville does. Like him (he has them re-roll if their stats don't sum to a certain minimum, or if they don't have at least two 15s, which as you say is better than the standard array), I would not be doing this to hurt the players or make the stats worse. Indeed, I would probably do some statistics like people have done here, and make sure that the odds favor a better array than the standard.
Rather, I would do 4d6-drop-one like Colville, at the table, rolling stats in order, and saying "we will discover our party together" like he does. I have personally witnessed players bringing their baggage from other games into my campaign, and I think it has been harmful (and if I had realized the extent to which it was going to happen, I would have disallowed the character right from the off). The player I'm thinking of, had played this character in a long, fun campaign previously, and loved playing him, so re-created him in my game. But then he was constantly frustrated that he could not re-live the same experiences he had with another game group at another table with his character. And no, I don't think he expected this initially, or even consciously... but deep down in his subconscious, he was expecting it to be just like it always was. Except it can't be -- there's a new party, every player at the table is different, I am the DM not someone else, and I did not see his other campaign so I cannot know, other than by 3rd hand stories, what he experienced. And even if I did know, and even if I had been his DM that other time, and even if we had all played with him before, and even if we had in concept agreed to re-run the exact same campaign as we had in the past, it could not have happened. Because you cannot catch lightning in a bottle twice.
Now, I knew he had some nostalgia for the character, and he had his heart set on it, so I allowed it. I even allowed a background that only marginally fit into the game I was running. And I think he was happy at first but as time went on, he became more and more unhappy "with his character" in this sort of nebulous, ill-defined way. And although he could never articulate it, maybe never realized what was going on consciously, he was perpetually dissatisfied, because he couldn't relive that old experience the way he had, deep down in places he doesn't talk about at parties, really wanted. So he had fun, yes... but there was always "something missing" that he couldn't put his finger on. And it was something as a DM I just could not give him, because I could not be the other DM, and the other players couldn't be the other party.
When I think about this, and realize that if I had just effing forced him to roll 4d6-drop-one in order, he'd almost certainly not have been able to play the class he needed to play this character, and would have been forced to play someone else. Someone new. Someone with no baggage -- no expectations of how the campaign would go. And although he'd have grumbled initially about playing a dragonborn barbarian or a halfling rogue instead of his chosen class, I think he'd have been happier in the long run with playing the new character. Because he could have just focused on this character in this campaign instead of trying to make this character be like it was last time.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
For me the weird thing about rolling is that most tables that do it allow you to re-roll/add points/etc... to generally make it at least as good as Standard Array or Point Buy but likely better.
Why not just do a higher point buy or a heroic array with higher stats then and stop pretending its about "random". I have this inherent distrust that people actually think its cool to have all 12's due to rolling and will likely just ask for point buy when they get it.
I am likely just a conspiracy theorist but I think that 90% of the tables that roll for stats really just do it in the hopes of getting super high stats and not for any kind of "randomness".
So I may be wrong but what irks me is the fact that people lie about their reasoning behind it a lot I think. If they were honest and said "I do it so I can potentially get great stats because I find that fun" I would be more ok with it as thats honesty at least.
I also hate that people just assume they will roll better stats with it...there is still a decent chance you just roll terrible stats or 12's across the board. Odds are in your favor but its still very possible to just be a slightly above average commoner, which to me at least, is a bad way to start a character.
If I had a table insist on rolling I would likely be hard on the fact that there is no re-rolling. You want to do it you have to accept the potential consequences. If you dont want to do that then I will suggest a higher point buy or heroic array and see what people go for.
Statistically you will roll better than PB or SPA. I agree with you on the other points, though. Especially the point about no-one actually wanting to play a very average character. Sure, I've had fun doing it in a one-shot or short adventure but I would never want to go levels 1-20 with 12s across the board.
OboeLauren said she does this, but the players also get the option for another attempt to roll. Whatever they choose to do after a bad roll, they keep even if it's a worse roll.
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Nobody does rolls to try and play average characters.
They either do them like Colville, to also assign the values to random stats, thus providing a "discovery of your character as you go" moment... or else they do it to ensure that not everyone has the exact same combo of 15--14-13-12-10-8, which gets kind of monotonous. And some people don't like point buy because it lets you be too perfectly efficient with stat allocations, and again, some people prefer if there is some "slop" to the points, because it feels (not saying it is, saying it feels) more natural.
Again, I am not advocating for what I do -- I used a "heroic" or improved stat array this time. The only reason I would go with rolls is if I also went with "discover your character" and made people put their stats where they land, not where they want. Incidentally, two of my players, when I described this method later after we had done characters, said they thought it would be fun to do this next time. And one who has already made up 5 future characters and planned them out to level 20 including "wish list" magic items, probably would hate it, though I haven't asked him specifically. (On the other hand if he makes up enough characters, he will probably have one for every possible set of rolls he could come up with, LOL.)
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Covilles method is interesting but I think is the worst possible way to start a new player to DnD. I would be ok with as an experienced player but new players would have no idea what to do with these random stats, especially if they are terrible.
His players all end up with about equal stats with most having a 20 and an 18 in something if you read The Chain character sheets. The exception is Copper and he is a beastmaster with a friggin displacer beast and if you look at the stats they provide in the show doesn't take many hits:
https://twitter.com/statsmcdm/status/1097964630109052928?lang=en
Also Coville hands out abilities and items that are not part of the normal run of the game which complicates things more.
In fact most of them are exceptional just proves my point that nobody actually wants to play a character with 12s across the board. It would be terribly boring for a podcast and for the player.
You look at CR you see the same thing except the players have made choices to take feats over ASI but they still all have a 19 or 20 in at least one stat.
"Rolling Culture" as I call it seems to make people think they will get these phenomenal stats but when they don't its disappointing and they move on to the normal way of doing things or they strike lucky and they tend to shift the balance in their favor.
If your way of producing stats requires you as a DM to provide magic items or abilities to even the scores within the ranks you are needlessly complicating the matter IMO.
I wonder what DDB uses when doing a completely random character during creation.
Using DDB's character sheet dice roller with 4d6 and dropping lowest, I got the following array (in order): 15, 10, 16, 9, 13, 16. Better than decent IMHO.
But using the random character generator, I got (left to right): 8, 10, 8, 11, 16, 7 (which is awful for a Barbarian with the standard Half-Elf score adjustments - class and origin also randomly picked by DDB).
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
Yeah completely random characters are utter trash IMO.
The first is reasonable as you have a few options you could go although its a weird combo of stats (STR, CON, and CHA means paladin most likely).
But the second? what would you even do with those stats? As a new player looking at those stats I wouldn't even know what to do. I have good wisdom so I guess I am a cleric? Except my AC is like 16 with medium armor and a shield and I start out with abysmal HP and drop my concentration spells at the drop of a hat.
I guess I am going Moon druid as its the only way I can play most of the game without those stats.
Or I swan dive into the nearest lava pit and try again.
The "find the character" method has a lot of flaws and this is one. If you roll decent stats it can work, but if you roll terrible it doesn' t help tell a story it just makes a trash character.
I know. That wasn't what I said though. It was a comment on the whole argument that lots of people like (or at least don't mind) playing a character with 12s across the board. Except for very short campaigns or one-shots, I haven't really found anyone who enjoys that sort of thing.
Coleville's method can be interesting if you don't have any idea for a character what so ever and want the dice to help you along. However, you are still stuck with the same problem as always, some characters might suck compared to others and one crappy stat in the wrong place might screw up your idea. Or you might just get stats that are suitable for something you don't want to play.
Just for fun I used a dice roller and got the following. Strength 16 Dexterity 13 Constitution 13 Intelligence 10 Wisdom 16 Charisma 15. Not bad stats by a longshot (in fact, they are damn good) and they would be fantastic for, say a Samurai Fighter, or Half-elf Paladin, Warlock or Bard. Too bad I've already played both a Bard and a Paladin recently and I'm not really in the mood for a Warlock but what are you going to do?
you dont have to play a powerful character.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
What?
But the internet says I do! The internet can't possibly be wrong... can it?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I mean...If I wanted to play an average or below average character I would play Accountants and Apartments not Dungeons and Dragons.
Ok...? I mean, just because the rest of your party has straight 18s, does not mean you can't have fun with 16, 14, 10, 8, 8, 8.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<
Even then you are about 90% of the way to a decent character.
We are talking about
12 12 12 12 12 12
or
8 8 10 11 14 7
Those are not in the same ballpark as 16, 14, 10, 8, 8, 8. as you at least have a 16 in your main stat and a 14 in CON. You could make a pretty effective STR fighter with that.
The other two are straight hot garbage and produce a character that cant even do what their character is expected to do well. You would for sure notice this if your party is rocking multiple 18s.
12 12 12 12 12 12 is just boring. I have rolled a character with my best stat a 12, and having 3 or 4 negatives.
I am an average mathematics enjoyer.
>Extended Signature<